I was listening to Adam Shein on Sirius this morning. And they were talking about next years superbowl being at Metlife and the possibilities of horrendeous traffic and bad weather.

A caller called in and asked, if the game is successful, would this open up the possibilities of games being played in other open stadium, northern locations. I thought for sure they would talk about Lambeau. Adam was saying he would love to see a Bowl in Seattle. He thinks the city is amazing, the stadium is amazing. The proximity with everything is great. He believes that if this doesnt turn out to be a massive failure, Seattle could see a bowl in the future.

(I do worry about parking space though. Might have to tear down some of the south east side and pave it over.)

I am wondering whether the available hotel rooms space would be a problem? That is why Jacksonville is not going to get another Superbowl until they address this issue. I read there were Cruise ships used to handle the overflow demand for rooms. The stadium capacity is on the low end but they can get it to fit the capacity requirement.

It will never happen. Not enough hotel space and too far. I suspect the closest we will get is one at the new 49er stadium in Santa Clara. That would be fun to play in the 49er backyard....in a Super Bowl.

drdiags wrote:I am wondering whether the available hotel rooms space would be a problem? That is why Jacksonville is not going to get another Superbowl until they address this issue. I read there were Cruise ships used to handle the overflow demand for rooms. The stadium capacity is on the low end but they can get it to fit the capacity requirement.

Yeah, they had a plan to add capacity with temporary bleachers or bigger bleachers in the north and south endzones IIRC. Something like 5,000 additional places for people to put their butts. You could probably get a couple thousand extra seats just by making the bleachers they have in the north endzone beside the Hawks Nest bigger.

Vancouver brought in cruise ships and train sleeping cars to house all the additional workers that came out for the Olympics. It worked out really well from what I heard; kept all the "real" hotel rooms available for regular customers. I imagine Seattle could do something similar for SB if they wanted to.

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

A 23-story Hilton Embassy Suites Hotel will anchor the eastern half of Stadium Place, a mixed-use project near Century Link Field.

The project's developer American Life Inc. said the hotel will have 297 rooms, along with 6,000 square feet of office space connected by an atrium. In total, Stadium Place will occupy a total of 4 acres at the edge of the Century Link Field's north parking lot.

Gregory Steinhauer, chief operating officer at American Life, said construction is slated to start in late summer or early fall. Construction would likely take about two years. Steinhauer said the project is currently going through design review.

Freiheit and Ho Architects Inc. will design the building. American Life has its own contracting company, SODO Builders, to work on the project. DCI is the structural engineer, Degen & Degen is the interior designer and Integrated Site Design is the landscape architect.

The project could cost more than $300 million. American Life pays for projects through the federal EB-5 program, which lets foreign nationals invest in projects in exchange for green cards.

Along with the hotel, American Life will build a four-story parking podium, a gym with a pool and a conference center and ballroom. The complex will also have 15,000 square feet of retail space.

The second phase of this part of the project involves building 171,000 square feet of office space spread over nine stories. A top floor restaurant and bar will be there as well. American Life is developing the office portion with Daniels Real Estate.

Daniels is also developing the west portion of Stadium Place with R.D. Merrill Co. It will have four structures totaling 700 units, including:

• A four-story podium with 74 apartments, 16,000 square feet of retail and about 370 parking spaces set to open next spring

• A 10-story apartment building with 109 loft-style units scheduled to open in September

• A 25-story apartment tower with 331 units opening in the spring of 2014

A 23-story Hilton Embassy Suites Hotel will anchor the eastern half of Stadium Place, a mixed-use project near Century Link Field.

The project's developer American Life Inc. said the hotel will have 297 rooms, along with 6,000 square feet of office space connected by an atrium. In total, Stadium Place will occupy a total of 4 acres at the edge of the Century Link Field's north parking lot.

Gregory Steinhauer, chief operating officer at American Life, said construction is slated to start in late summer or early fall. Construction would likely take about two years. Steinhauer said the project is currently going through design review.

Freiheit and Ho Architects Inc. will design the building. American Life has its own contracting company, SODO Builders, to work on the project. DCI is the structural engineer, Degen & Degen is the interior designer and Integrated Site Design is the landscape architect.

The project could cost more than $300 million. American Life pays for projects through the federal EB-5 program, which lets foreign nationals invest in projects in exchange for green cards.

Along with the hotel, American Life will build a four-story parking podium, a gym with a pool and a conference center and ballroom. The complex will also have 15,000 square feet of retail space.

The second phase of this part of the project involves building 171,000 square feet of office space spread over nine stories. A top floor restaurant and bar will be there as well. American Life is developing the office portion with Daniels Real Estate.

Daniels is also developing the west portion of Stadium Place with R.D. Merrill Co. It will have four structures totaling 700 units, including:

• A four-story podium with 74 apartments, 16,000 square feet of retail and about 370 parking spaces set to open next spring

• A 10-story apartment building with 109 loft-style units scheduled to open in September

• A 25-story apartment tower with 331 units opening in the spring of 2014

This has been brought up and looked into within the last year. Super Bowl rules say that a city must have 25,000 hotel rooms for the Super Bowl. Seattle has about 13,000 in the downtown area. They said it is possible that they could stretch the boundaries to count all of king county and that would be enough to put them over the top. I know the team has looked into the possibility pretty strongly, but declined to submit an official bid last time. They may be waiting to see how it plays out next season.

Topic comes up occasionally, agree with most of what's been said here. I think that Seattle would have a real shot if we submitted a bid, especially if there were plans to bring in a couple big cruise ships for extra lodging. This of course assumes people like the NYC Super Bowl and it doesn't end up being four degrees or something... though even that would be an argument to have it here, it's rare that we get very cold, and yeah, it might rain, but then again, usually it doesn't.

What a great year to get the #1 seed. Could you imagine? Undefeated at home all year, two playoff games at the Clink. Just imagine what the odds would be for any opponent. That would be epic and almost make up for SBXL.

Seattle lacks the facilities and infrastructure to support a week of visitors and parties. Large scale outdoor events, partying until late, and mingling have all been a significant part of the super bowl weeks I have attended. None of these will work in Seattle.

Additionally, I don't see the political will to financially commit to courting and hosting the game. Think of all the complaints about the Blue Angels every year, for example.

Maybe the basketball arena and surrounding development will push the dial in favor of something like this in a few years.

Seattle lacks the facilities and infrastructure to support a week of visitors and parties. Large scale outdoor events, partying until late, and mingling have all been a significant part of the super bowl weeks I have attended. None of these will work in Seattle.

This is untrue. Seattle host PAX West each year which brings in 70,000 persons, and the city runs just fine. If the superbowl came, you can garuntee, they would renivate some areas around the stadium, but otherwise, it could handle the crowds.

hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??

I would love it, especially if the Seahawks made it as well. Is C-Link big enough to host it or does there have to be a certain stadium capacity? Dallas, New Orleans and NY/NJ stadiums are all around 80,000. Ours is 67,000 so i'm wondering.

Can you imagine a half time show if the rain was pouring like crazy or strong winds .

Seattle lacks the facilities and infrastructure to support a week of visitors and parties. Large scale outdoor events, partying until late, and mingling have all been a significant part of the super bowl weeks I have attended. None of these will work in Seattle.

Additionally, I don't see the political will to financially commit to courting and hosting the game. Think of all the complaints about the Blue Angels every year, for example.

Maybe the basketball arena and surrounding development will push the dial in favor of something like this in a few years.

I don't get this attitude at all.

Seattle has hosted the final four in basketball and trust me as many people show up for that as they would for a super bowl. And its spread out over a couple of week period.

Granted you don't seat as many for a basketball game as football but I'd wager Seattle could handle the overflow easily. The part about cruise ships is easy now that there is a cruise ship dock/terminal about a mile from the stadium.

Also major airport close by with shuttle service.Don't forget they could put people all the way to Vancouver BC north Portland/Vancouver south and transport them on special trains. Hell it would be a selling point for a destination trip vacation in the winter plan. And the train stops within walking distance of the stadium.

But trust me if it snows for the New York game and you have a frozen field that will be the end of northern venues. Green Bay went to a huge expense to make their field playable in all kinds of below 0 weather but a cold spell in New York would mean playing on a field with the consistency of freeway concrete.

With the money the NFL makes I am in favor of something mentioned now and then. Build a stadium just for the Super Bowl. Don't talk money, they could make enough money on that one game to justify it.

JSeahawks wrote:I would very much prefer that the Super Bowl stays in warm climates. I hated it in Detroit. Don't want it in New York. And don't want it in Seattle either.

I'm with you, J.

I'd take it even further though. I think the Super Bowl should be played in damn near perfect conditions all the time.

I know it's a ludicrous idea, but I think they should build a neutral "Super Bowl Stadium" in some amazing climate (like AZ or LA) with a grass field and retractable roof, all the fixins. and just host the SB there every single year.

I kind of think LA would be perfect, especially if they never got another NFL team. Obviously, this would be a proximal homefield for SF, SD, Oakland, AZ and (gasp) even Seattle a little bit but what the heck!

If they built it properly, maybe it could house other concerts and events throughout the year.

JSeahawks wrote:I would very much prefer that the Super Bowl stays in warm climates. I hated it in Detroit. Don't want it in New York. And don't want it in Seattle either.

I'm with you, J.

I'd take it even further though. I think the Super Bowl should be played in damn near perfect conditions all the time.

I know it's a ludicrous idea, but I think they should build a neutral "Super Bowl Stadium" in some amazing climate (like AZ or LA) with a grass field and retractable roof, all the fixins. and just host the SB there every single year.

I kind of think LA would be perfect, especially if they never got another NFL team. Obviously, this would be a proximal homefield for SF, SD, Oakland, AZ and (gasp) even Seattle a little bit but what the heck!

If they built it properly, maybe it could house other concerts and events throughout the year.

Anyway, there's my harebrained idea for the day.

Las Vegas? venue could be used year round for large concerts/events, plenty of hotels, and the state would benefit from the gambling revenue. plus, go to vegas to watch your team in the super bowl? sign me up!!

I like the Idea of a Site specific Superbowl arena that would be really cool, and vegas would be Ideal.

But......This is football, why does the "best game of football all year" have to be in perfect conditions, when EVERY OTHER game is in whatever ever conditions it happens to be? And more times than not the Conference Championships are played in Terrible weather!

By the way Here in Denver they are talking about the exact same thing, getting a Superbowl. In early February the conditions here are probably more sunny than Seattle but it's definitely colder!

Also I think New York is a Spectacular place to have a Superbowl, because it is awesome there. It one of my favorite places ive been in the US.

not only did we host final 4, but we hosted the Baseball allstar game, and that event was a thing of beauty.... if seattle wanted it bad enough they could make it happen... i prefer the warmer climates, but i hate it being played in domes...

hawker84 wrote:not only did we host final 4, but we hosted the Baseball allstar game, and that event was a thing of beauty.... if seattle wanted it bad enough they could make it happen... i prefer the warmer climates, but i hate it being played in domes...

The final four here was awesome. I'm too young to remember but my dad told me there was a single guy (more or less) that was responsible for putting together those bids that got us the Final Four in '87 and '93, and I think a first round in '97ish.

The game will never be hosted at a neutral site. The people that make these decisions are the owners, and the owners would never give up a chance to have the bowl at their stadium. The revenue for the city and the stadium is just to much to give up.

hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??

I think when looking at hotel/event capacity, you have to look at the Greater Seattle Area, rather than just Seattle proper. Cowboys Stadium is in Arlington, TX, but you can bet they were including hotels from all of DFW (which is massive!) for their Superbowl bid. If you look at the capacities of Seattle, Bellevue, SeaTac and Tacoma/Puyallup, at least, I think the number definitely gets there. The Seattle area also has a number of facilities for events to be held. The real question is location and the experiment in the Meadowlands with an outdoor northern Superbowl.

5280Hawk wrote:I like the Idea of a Site specific Superbowl arena that would be really cool, and vegas would be Ideal.

But......This is football, why does the "best game of football all year" have to be in perfect conditions, when EVERY OTHER game is in whatever ever conditions it happens to be? And more times than not the Conference Championships are played in Terrible weather!

By the way Here in Denver they are talking about the exact same thing, getting a Superbowl. In early February the conditions here are probably more sunny than Seattle but it's definitely colder!

Also I think New York is a Spectacular place to have a Superbowl, because it is awesome there. It one of my favorite places ive been in the US.

I kinda like the idea of having perfrct conditions for the championship game. It takes away an excuse for losing. As it is now, you can't blame losing on home field advantage as it's a neutral site and a two week break in between gives lots of time to overcome travel/jet lag. Ensuring perfect conditions takes away the excuse of a fair weather team losing due to the weather.

The championship should be all about the best team winning, not about who overcomes the adversity the best. Making a dedicated "Super Bowl Stadium" in Las Vegas would guarantee a neutral site and near perfect conditions (actual perfect if it's retractable roof). Vegas isn't exactly centrally located, so there is likely to be a little discrepency in the travel distance for teams, but it's a helluva lot better than travelling to the south east where it's usually held.

Vegas with it's transient/tourist population would never be able to support an actual NFL team because nobody would stick around long enough to become a fan, but making it "home of the super bowl" would bring it into the NFL fold. Vegas could handle the influx of people that the Super Bowl brings and not even bat an eye. and think of all the gambling! The city of Las Vegas would pay the NFL for the priviledge of hosting the game.

It's a cool idea...

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

Never been to a Superbowl, but would think the current drinking laws would hamper the appeal of having a Superbowl week here. If there was NBA and NHL that could offer some other activities. I guess going non-alcohol after 2:00 a.m. isn't that big a deal?

5280Hawk wrote:I like the Idea of a Site specific Superbowl arena that would be really cool, and vegas would be Ideal.

But......This is football, why does the "best game of football all year" have to be in perfect conditions, when EVERY OTHER game is in whatever ever conditions it happens to be? And more times than not the Conference Championships are played in Terrible weather!

By the way Here in Denver they are talking about the exact same thing, getting a Superbowl. In early February the conditions here are probably more sunny than Seattle but it's definitely colder!

Also I think New York is a Spectacular place to have a Superbowl, because it is awesome there. It one of my favorite places ive been in the US.

I kinda like the idea of having perfrct conditions for the championship game. It takes away an excuse for losing. As it is now, you can't blame losing on home field advantage as it's a neutral site and a two week break in between gives lots of time to overcome travel/jet lag. Ensuring perfect conditions takes away the excuse of a fair weather team losing due to the weather.

The championship should be all about the best team winning, not about who overcomes the adversity the best. Making a dedicated "Super Bowl Stadium" in Las Vegas would guarantee a neutral site and near perfect conditions (actual perfect if it's retractable roof). Vegas isn't exactly centrally located, so there is likely to be a little discrepency in the travel distance for teams, but it's a helluva lot better than travelling to the south east where it's usually held.

Vegas with it's transient/tourist population would never be able to support an actual NFL team because nobody would stick around long enough to become a fan, but making it "home of the super bowl" would bring it into the NFL fold. Vegas could handle the influx of people that the Super Bowl brings and not even bat an eye. and think of all the gambling! The city of Las Vegas would pay the NFL for the priviledge of hosting the game.

It's a cool idea...

I couldn't have said it better!

The whole reason we all accept and / or like weather games in the playoffs is because it's that particular teams HOME FIELD. Like saying - okay now, you have to beat us in OUR element - whatever that is.

The Super Bowl is meant to be played on a neutral field, so I wouldn't want one team having an advantage over another. And just like CAN said, to me, when it comes to the Super Bowl in particular, I want the teams to decide the games, not the elements.

And finally, and this is probably the least popular opinion of all: I don't think "weather games" are nearly as fun as we think they are. I think we as football fans have this romantic notion of "how football is meant to be played, in the snow, the muck, etc.", but in reality those weather games are usually not that fun to watch, or more accurately, the football being played is significantly worse than that of a typical game.